If there is a middle road, its the undeclared agnostic. The person who manifests no belief, but retains some silly religious identity "Im a catholic...Im Luthern".
However, someone who simply declares "I am agnostic, I do not now know whether God does, or does not exist. I have not seen sufficient proof either way" does not occupy a middle ground. In fact, it may be the only honest ground.
I respect atheists, although I find many of them to be emotionally scarred by religion, more than committed to a certain idealogy. I personally think God probably doesnt exist. However, I am sure that, if he does, he is emotionally secure enough to cope with, and understand, my position.
2006-10-02 11:05:13 · 7 answers · asked by WWND 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I think you pretty well answered your own question. Most atheists (at least in N America) seem to be very angry at Christians and Christianity. On the personal level that really is the biggest difference between them and agnostics.
I have to disagree with you about the "middle road" tho. That honor (if honor it is) should go to Deism which is what I seem to have evolved (devolved?) into at this point in my life.....
2006-10-02 12:00:45 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Anything that exists has substance, and anything that has substance leaves some kind of trace and can be measured. No one uses the argument that they're agnostics when it comes to rejecting the existence of fairies, leprechauns, elves, and other mythical creatures so why would it be any different when it comes to rejecting the existence of God. Perhaps it's the complete absence of evidence that suggests there is no reason to even consider the existence of these mythical creatures. Atheism isn't a disbelief in the existence of a higher supernatural power, it's the complete absence of belief, because of a complete absence evidence which is in fact evidence. Agnostic means "no knowledge," and one can only have no knowledge of something if there is no evidence of it's existence, and if there is no evidence of its existence then there is no cause to even consider believing it exists.
2015-09-28 05:47:52 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't know. I only know that I get offended when someone calls agnostics atheists without balls. What is wrong with admitting that we, as human beings, are so small and insignificant in the scheme of the universe that we can't be all knowing enough to know if there is or isn't a God/Gods for sure?
2006-10-02 11:13:18 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Saying that atheists "quibble" with agnostics is like saying someone "quibbles" over being pregnant. A woman isn't "maybe pregnant", she either is or he isn't.
"Emotionally secure"? Are you always so condescending?
Anyway, you don't _have_ a position that is clearly thought out. Come back when you're figured out what to think.
.
2006-10-02 11:13:50 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
yah thats pretty much how i feel too. the only real honest statement out there is that there is no proof of god, and neither is there proof of his lack of existance. one cannot prove he is, or he isnt.
i think if god DOES exist then if hes sending me to hell for not LABELING myself as a christian, or reading the bible, yet lets murderes rapists and such into heaven cause they repented, then hes not quite just and forgiving and merciful as proclaimed.
2006-10-02 11:09:23 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
And for that I respect you. Were I not an atheist, I would be an agnostic.
2006-10-02 11:09:02 · answer #6 · answered by reverenceofme 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
good statement and it does make sense...but what is your question?
2006-10-02 11:12:39 · answer #7 · answered by staci m 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋